Is Auburn Deserving of 2004 BCS Title?

[selmaborntidefan]

I think the mere fact that any Auburn fans are suggesting it along with Wingnut gets back to the perpetual insecurity that marks being an Auburn fan. They will NEVER be Alabama & they know it. But too many of their fans are in denial about that. For years they tried to say things about how their school is more than just a football factory, that Alabama only wins by cheating, that they are not concerned with "mythical" national championships. But their actions since November 10 prove that every one of them without exception is a liar. Look at how they acted. Has Auburn acted to you like folks who are above such piddly things as MNCs?

The only reason I'd like to see them get it is because I'd like them to get popped for this paying players and become the first team to ever be stripped of TWO national titles.

I will evaluate with a longer post free from the emotional jumbo in a day or two. However, here's some logic for you: how does Auburn get away with the notion that a USC vacate gives them the nod over OU? They as t to say "but OU still lost." Fair enough, but Auburn still didn't win it on the field.

Auburn might well have been the best team that year. For all the emphasis on their weak OOC, it was hardly weaker than LSU in 2003. And Auburn did beat four nine-win teams that year, while OU beat one. But unless a playoff is the determining way then one can hardly say Auburn is any more deserving than OU or Utah.

 

[Bama Reb]

*U might have earned the nod had they been selected to play in the game. Heck, they might have won the game. But you can't award NC trophies based on what might have been. You have to go with what is and nothing else. The plain simple truth is that they weren't selected to play in the game. As a result, they can't lay clam to the trophy and title any more than can any other team that didn't get to play in that game.
IMO, IF you HAVE to give it to any team, that team has to be the one that actually played in the game.

 

[Tide Warrior]

Auburn deserved to be playing in that game but since they did not play they do not deserve the title.

Anyway why do they care? They already got their rings for being NC that year, even though they really do not count but we know AU believes they deserved them.


Coach Tommy Tuberville confirmed that the Auburn Tigers players would get national championship rings for their 13-0 season, despite finishing the year #2 in the final 2004 AP poll and the final 2004 coaches polls.

Auburn to hand out championship rings : Fanblogs College Football Blog

 

[bamaslaw]

I almost would say yes just so we could permanently shut them up about us "making up titles".

 

[teamplayer]

In any eligibility issue where a team is ruled to have played ineligible players, the team that lost to the ineligible team is awarded the victory. Therefore, Oklahoma should be declared the winner of the 2004 BCS title if one is awarded. There is enough precedent with ineligibility situations that this seems clear to everyone except Tommy Tuberville and Auburn fans. If the AP wanted to claim Auburn as the undefeated champion over a now undefeated Oklahoma team, that would be up to them. I wouldn't have a problem with it because Auburn definitely had a championship level team that year that went undefeated in the SEC and beat Va. Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Still, the BCS title should only belong to OU. I can't honestly undertand how anyone can see it any other way, and I don't think people would if OU hadn't gotten destroyed by USC in the title game.

 

[teamplayer]

Auburn deserved to be playing in that game but since they did not play they do not deserve the title.

Anyway why do they care? They already got their rings for being NC that year, even though they really do not count but we know AU believes they deserved them.


Coach Tommy Tuberville confirmed that the Auburn Tigers players would get national championship rings for their 13-0 season, despite finishing the year #2 in the final 2004 AP poll and the final 2004 coaches polls.

Auburn to hand out championship rings : Fanblogs College Football Blog

Why do you say that Auburn deserved to be playing in the title game when OU and USC both started at numbers 1 and 2 and clearly looked like the two best teams in the country according to most people. I assume you say this because Auburn is in the SEC, which is certainly a good point. Who would you have left out if Auburn had been in? I assume you would have left out Oklahoma, but what made AU's resume that year any better than OU's? They were all very good teams, but I think USC was by far the best. However, they have been proven to be cheaters, so OU should be the BCS champion since they were playing in the title game. The AP can give Auburn a title if they like, and if I were an Auburn fan, I would claim it as number three every day of the week.

 

[Crimson Surfer]

Does the barn deserve the 2004 BCS title. Not no, but hell no. Are some of the barners lobbying for it and crying about it? Yes.

 

[bamanut_aj]

I would like to add that I was undefeated that year also....never lost a single football game. I would like to submit that I should also be awarded a share of the title.

Just sayin'

 

[cindym]

Why would they want to claim something they didnt play for? and as some posters on here said, they cheated that year too. Thats the pot calling the kettle black.!!!

 

[AUTigers001]

But you can't award NC trophies based on what might have been. You have to go with what is and nothing else. The plain simple truth is that they weren't selected to play in the game. As a result, they can't lay clam to the trophy and title any more than can any other team that didn't get to play in that game.
IMO, IF you HAVE to give it to any team, that team has to be the one that actually played in the game.

I agree. It really shouldn't even be a discussion. The BCS champion is decided in one certain game between two teams. Auburn and Utah were not in that game. They can't be named the champion.

 

[bamagradinATL]

I wouldn't give em spit. If the title should be awarded to anyone, it should go to OU. *U didn't play in the BCS Championship game so they can't be awarded the title.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

OK. I will preface my response here by saying:

a) Auburn does not deserve the 2004 rewarded BCS title
b) Auburn probably would have lost to USC in 2004

That said, this right here is why I'm always making the point regarding what a sick joke the entire BCS farce is.

Why do you say that Auburn deserved to be playing in the title game when OU and USC both started at numbers 1 and 2

Which is why the BCS is such a complete farce. Well that among 600 other reasons.

Would you have felt this way in 2005 if Alabama had gone unbeaten? I made that same point back then when many on here was ridiculing Auburn. And our OOC in 2005 really wasn't any better than Auburn's was.

USC and OU STARTED 1 and 2. Why? Because some people had AN OPINION that they were the two best teams. That's it. Period. It might be good to ask why in the world LSU was not number two in light of being the defending champion.

and clearly looked like the two best teams in the country according to most people.

I don't know about you, but I didn't have a vote in the thing. Neither did most people. What was it - 60 or so guys that got to vote?

I assume you say this because Auburn is in the SEC, which is certainly a good point.

Auburn also beat FOUR DIFFERENT TEAMS and FIVE OVERALL with NINE or more wins. Oklahoma beat TWO, and one of those was Bowling Green, which shouldn't even count. USC beat four, including Oklahoma.

No, Auburn's OOC wasn't that tough. But then again the Big 12 wasn't all that tough in conference, either.

Who would you have left out if Auburn had been in?

Which is ANOTHER REASON the BCS is a farce.

I assume you would have left out Oklahoma, but what made AU's resume that year any better than OU's?

The fact Auburn beat FIVE teams in 13 games that won nine games, four that won ten - and Oklahoma beat ONE 11-win team (Texas) and a nine-win joke, Bowling Green State. Furthermore, why is it every Alabama fan makes the point about Auburn having the "softest schedule" in 2004, but they NEVER apply that same standard to LSU in 2003?

Remember 2003? When OU was liberally being called the greatest team ever? And then K-State slam dunked them. And then LSU beat them even though they supposedly couldn't. That's my beef with the assumption that USC necessarily would have beaten Auburn. Do I think they would have? Yes, I do.

They were all very good teams, but I think USC was by far the best. However, they have been proven to be cheaters, so OU should be the BCS champion since they were playing in the title game. The AP can give Auburn a title if they like, and if I were an Auburn fan, I would claim it as number three every day of the week.

All valid points.

 

[KrimsonNinja]

Whoever plays in the Title Game and wins it, is the only team deserving of the National Title. USC was stripped of the 2004 National Title so therefore it should stay vacated.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Whoever plays in the Title Game and wins it, is the only team deserving of the National Title. USC was stripped of the 2004 National Title so therefore it should stay vacated.

Yes, I concur.

 

[b2v4ua]

They actually didn't play for it, so no...saying they probably should have had the opportunity to is a whole different thing.
But if I remember correctly, part of the reason the barn didn't get that chance was their superweak schedule that year which included The Citadel...that hurt them when compared to teams like USC & OU and voters held it against them similar to the Boise St arguments. I remember that being a major point of discussion back then. That and a low ranking early on in the season/pre-season didn't help either.

Cat you are EXACTLY right ! I guess the Barners quickley forgot that .

 

[b2v4ua]

Personally I believe Auburn was the best team in the nation that year but their strength of schedule was their downfall. Because of their sos they weren't allowed to go to the big dance which was fair. No BCS title is fair. Auburn got their make believe rings so everyone is happy again in West Georgia.

Maybe they were the best team because their schedule was so weak and that proves a big fat nothing to me. Leave it vacant..lets move on nothing to see here as the Barners would say.

 

[TheRealPokeChop]

no, they suck.

^^^^^THIS^^^^

This guy really knows what he's talking about.

 

[Luvnbama]

They got the mythical "Peoples National Championship" what more do they want?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

As I say on here repeatedly - why do they even care about something that for years they have insisted DOES NOT EXIST?

Note these words well:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IN DIVISION 1-A COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Yes, that is true. The NCAA does not officially sanction a national championship in football's highest classification, like it does for every other team sport and all other classes of football. You should know this.

END QUOTE

Now again I ask you - why do they even CARE about something that according to them DOES NOT EVEN EXIST?

 

[TommyMac]

Personally I believe Auburn was the best team in the nation that year but their strength of schedule was their downfall. Because of their sos they weren't allowed to go to the big dance which was fair. No BCS title is fair. Auburn got their make believe rings so everyone is happy again in West Georgia.

How do you figure? In the opening game of 2003 USC beat the boogs 23-0 with Reggie Bush, Lendale White and Matt Leinart all making their first collegiate starts. The barner's had Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown and Barnell, all experienced juniors.

Had they played again in the last game of the 2004 season, Bush, White and Leinart would have gained 2 full years of experience, plus the game would have been at a neutral site.

No way in hell the barn was a better team. They actually were lucky they didn't have to play USC or else they would likely have suffered a humiliating loss just like the Sooners.